Alan Turing is perhaps best known for his role in cracking the German military's Enigma crypto system. Turing thereby -- at the very least -- shortened the war against the Nazis and saved many lives. He also established some of the foundational theorems of computer science. As for the subject/headlines at hand, he speculated, way back in 1950, about artificial intelligence.

Given that the experts struggled -- and still do -- to define intelligence, Turing's insight was (characteristically) brilliant. To wit: don't try to define artificial intelligence; describe its behavior. From which arose the famous Turing Test: if an artificial entity interacting with judges by text messages successfully masquerades as a human at the keyboard, then the entity, too, is intelligent.

Pay no attention to the computer behind the curtain

Such imitation served as the basis of many recent headlines. From that Washington Post article:... a Russian-made program, which disguised itself as a
13-year-old boy named Eugene Goostman from Odessa, Ukraine, bamboozled
33 percent of human questioners. Eugene was one of five supercomputers
who entered the 2014 Turing Test.

Doesn't that 33 percent sound precise and scientific? Not so much. There were three judges, meaning one person was convinced. Fooled. That doesn't seem terribly compelling to me.

The 2014 Turing Test ran for only five minutes, while "Eugene" hid behind the clever persona of a teenager for whom English was a second language. From that Smithsonian article:

All of this raises a crucial question:
What is it, exactly, that the Turing test is measuring? Some critics
have suggested that it is [sic] rewards trickery rather than intelligence. NYU
Psychologist Gary Marcus, writing at NewYorker.com,
says Eugene succeeds “by executing a series of ‘ploys’ designed to mask
the program’s limitations.” Steven Harnad, a psychologist and computer
scientist at the University of Quebec in Montreal, was even more
skeptical, telling The Guardian
that it was “complete nonsense” to claim that Eugene had passed the
Turing test. (To his credit, Turing was well aware of this issue; he
called his idea “the imitation game,” and spoke of intelligence only
sparingly.) Even more awkwardly, the computer, unlike the human, is
compelled to deceive. “The Turing Test is really a test of being a
successful liar,” Pat Hayes, a computer scientist at the Institute for
Human and Machine Cognition in Pensacola, Florida, told me following the
2012 Turing test marathon. “If you had something that really could pass
Turing’s imitation game, it would be a very successful ‘human mimic.’”

Beyond those highly cogent objections, I'll propose one of my own: the most essential attribute of what we humans consider intelligence is purposeful volition. However realistically a mechanism, hardware and/or software, responds to stimuli, it's absurd to consider that mechanism to be "intelligent" if, left to itself, it only spins its mental wheels.

How and why do evolved minds initiate actions? What is free will? What is self-awareness? Alas, no one knows. My suspicion is that -- somehow -- volition is (a) an emergent property of (b) a very large ensemble of quantum states. Within physics as it is presently understood, only quantum mechanics offers any basis for non-determinism.

Alas (as per an earlier article from the Washington Post, "Why quantum mechanics is an “embarrassment” to science"), despite almost a century of effort, physicists still fail to agree what quantum mechanics means. The plurality opinion of a recent survey -- of thirty-three experts -- was: don't ask. The math works.

Image credit: Scientific Instruments

If intelligence does require volition and volition is indeed rooted in quantum indeterminism, I don't find it surprising that intelligence -- whether based in meat or silicon -- remains ill-defined.

Suppose that, someday, our technological toolbox grows to include large-scale quantum computing. (That day may be awhile coming. See, from PhysicsWorld.com, "Is D-Wave's quantum computer actually a quantum computer?") Then, perhaps, an entity will arise with a credible possibility of demonstrating intelligence rather than trickery and mimicry.

What to read?

Non-US shoppers

Featured Post: A Milestone

On October 16, 2007, Fleet of Worlds was first published. That is: ten years ago to the day. Larry and Ed at 2015 Nebula weekend This...

Energized (Newly reissued!)

"A taut near-future thriller about an energy-starved Earth held hostage by a power-mad international cartel … Lerner’s vision of the future is both topical and possible in this crisp, fast-paced hard SF adventure.” —Publishers Weekly

Dark Secret (my latest)

"I heartily recommend Ed Lerner's Dark Secret" — Tangent Online

InterstellarNet: Enigma (I-Net #3)

"One of the most rewarding SF reading experiences anyone could ask for, on both an intellectual and emotional level." — Tangent Online

InterstellarNet: Origins (I-Net #1)

"One of the most original, believable, thoroughly thought-out, and utterly fascinating visions ever of what interstellar contact might really be like."— Stanley Schmidt, editor of Analog

A Time Foreclosed

"A nice little foray into the paradoxes of time travel" — SFRevu

Fate of Worlds (FOW #5)

“Brings to a stunning close a multivolume saga that has captured the imaginations of a multitude of readers … a story that will attract attention from series fans as well as readers of hard sf.” — Library Journal

Juggler of Worlds (FoW #2)

“A snazzy thriller/mystery that keeps us (and our hero) guessing until the very end ... Wide screen galactic scope, nifty super-science, crafty aliens, corporate corruption and cover ups, and a multi-leveled spy vs. spy vs. spy mystery with little being as it first appears make Juggler of Worlds a first class exemplar of pure SF entertainment.” —SFsite

Fleet of Worlds (FoW #1)

" ... Needs recommending within the science fiction community about as much as a new Harry Potter novel does – well, anywhere." —Locus

ARMAGEDDON / PARADISE -- two books in one

"A romp through time and history ... an intriguing selection." — Bookloons

Small Miracles

"Suspense and action enough to fuel any thriller, and even to drive it to the big screen." —SFrevu

Fools' Experiments

“When the artificial intelligences ... go maverick, they turn out to be the true weapons of mass destruction. A fast, fun read.” — Sci Fi Weekly

Ed's Facebook page

subscribe to:

Follow SF and Nonsense by email

About Me

I'm a physicist and computer scientist (and an MBA, of less relevance to most of these posts). After thirty years in industry, as everything from individual technical contributor to senior vice president, I now write full-time. Mostly I write science fiction and techno-thrillers, now and again throwing in a straight science or technology article.